Talk:Brie Larson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Babysitter

From the article:

Brie appeared in 2008 short film The Babysitter, written and directed by David H. Steinberg and co-starring Josh Cooke, Molly Hagan and John Kapelos. The film can be seen exclusively online at Atom Films. The film raised controversy as it depicted her as a promiscuous high school student who turns to prostitution as a source of income. Brie has refused to talk publicly about her role in the short film.

This paragraph is an inaccurate synopsis of the short film. The film is about a babysitter who is called to "babysit" a grown 20-something male, who then proceeds to sleep with her. She does not knowingly engage in prostitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.12.143 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

is she named after the cheese?

break.com video

She was in a video i just saw on break.com.. yeah.. is that worthy enough to put in this page? http://www.break.com/index/cute-blonde-18-year-old-babysitter.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.157.54 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. By the way, please be careful to sign your posts with four tildes (~) Lowri (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brie Larson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110623032746/http://www.myspace.com:80/brielarsonmusic/blog to https://www.myspace.com/brielarsonmusic/blog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

New Image

I'm going to just say what I'm sure many people are thinking; we've got to find a new photo for her header image. The current one is embarrassing. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't see any more free images of her on Commons. If there are some freely licensed images available on Flickr it would be great! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Captain Marvel

Brie will appear as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel in MCU but that's not in her filmography. Someone please add it. Thanks. 151.250.224.217 (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Captain Marvel will be added when filming begins. Reach Out to the Truth 00:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brie Larson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brielarsonmusic.com/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HkD4d8lG?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmqb.com%2FArticle.asp%3Fid%3D69239 to http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=69239

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brie Larson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006104644/http://www.filmink.com.au/features/finding-a-voice/ to http://www.filmink.com.au/features/finding-a-voice/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=69239

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Poet?

"Brie Larson is an American actress, screenwriter, director, poet, singer, and songwriter."

Did her publicist write this? Do we really need to list every little thing she's done in her life? She's co-directed two short films, she was a singer in her teens, and I haven't seen any evidence that she's a screenwriter or poet. I propose changing the opening sentence to just "Brie Larson is an American actress". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.65.28 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Actress and singer" is a good compromise because she did both of those things professionally, while the only reliable evidence of the other things has been solely amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.65.28 (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems she's solely an actress and has not continued to pursue a career in music. I propose we change it back to "Brie Larson is an American actress." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.191.129 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Since she hasn't pursued her musical career, it should read "Brie Larson is an American actress, director, producer and former musician" or just leave out the musician all together. Goober2017 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brie Larson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031124851/http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/brie-larson-profile.php to http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/brie-larson-profile.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7751033-former-childactress-brie-larson-at-late-late-show-with-craig-ferguson
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015202938/http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/135986-brandon-routh-on-scott-pilgrim to http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/135986-brandon-routh-on-scott-pilgrim
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232107/http://americanmusicchannel.com/artists/brie-larson to http://americanmusicchannel.com/artists/brie-larson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

racism

If this is making headlines it should be here.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/brie-larson-calls-more-minority-072400893.html

“I don’t want to hear what a white man has to say about ‘A Wrinkle in Time.’" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.69.153.108 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

Should the lead and infobox mention "singer and songwriter" among Larson's professions? Joeyconnick thinks that we shouldn't but I believe we should since she has had a music career in the past. A consensus would be great to avoid conflicts in the future. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the fact her "music career" of releasing one album is referred to as her "dabbling" highlights my point. Would the album even be notable absent her prominence as an actor? Her notability is overwhelmingly because of her acting. Now that may change in the future, but as of right now, she is an actor who (like many other actors) can sing. That's not the same type of varied career as, say, Barbra Streisand or Cher. Or even Selena Gomez or Ariana Grande. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a good FA without covering current controvery

Rotten Tomatoes just changed their website to prevent criticism of Brie and her new movie Captian Marvel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, to prevent trolling. From when does Wikipedia pay attention to what sexist trolls have to say? Also, how is that even a controversy? It's absolutely WP:UNDUE and deserves no mention at all in her article. There's a mention of it in the reception section of Captain Marvel, which is where it belongs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The wat you use "Trolling" makes it sound like shorthand for "stuff I don't like". There are tons of reliable sources covering this, which is how we determine is something is relevant. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Where are the WP:reliable sources that talk about it being a "massive controversy"? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, in response to your "question", the Independent calls them sexist trolls, not me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(redent) It sounds like you see the sources. If "sexist trolls" are at fault, that's fine. The article still needs to cover that subject to be an FA. I just came here to read about the most reliably sourced coveraged stuf about Brie, and I didn't find it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not how Wikipedia and WP:Featured articles work. Also, WP:UNDUE as not everything warrants coverage. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Nikkimaria, Aoba47, Hawkeye7, Moisejp, and Laser brain who weighed in on the article's FAC. This editor is really making a mountain out of a molehill, and I'm not sure how to respond especially to this meaningless action days before the article is scheduled to be on the main page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging those editors. I was seeing a bunch of articles on the current controversy, and so I went to look at the WP article. Obviously a great article, but I saw it was an FA about to go on the main page, and it didn't discuss this major recent bunch of reliable sources talking about it. Normally you can't force editors to improve an article, but if you find an FA that's about to go on the main page, that's when you have the power to make people improve an article or else it's delisted or whatever. -Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

At the very top of the page it says that this is "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." Your approach, however, has been bad-spirited and this is one of the pettiest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. If you have a problem, be kind and discuss it on the talk page without drawing swords, and then maybe the problem, if any, can be fixed easily. Your comment on having the "power" is so offensive, that I sincerely hope you didnd't mean that. So if you do want to act in good faith, kindly revert yourself here, and then we can let the other editors weigh in. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I had a feeling that this would come up sometime. I agree with Krimuk2.0 that this seems more appropriate for the Captain Marvel article. A small part could possibly be added in the "Other work" section about how her feminist viewpoints have attracted some criticism, but I am not quite certain about it. I do not think this is necessarily a bad topic for conversation, as it is getting media attention at the moment, but I disagree with Peregrine Fisher's approach. Opening a featured article review is a rather extreme response over this and I also agree with Krimuk2.0 that it is rather bad-spirited. On a somewhat related note, I think we can all agree that the last A Wrinkle in Time movie is utter garbage regardless of the age/race of the reviewer lol. Aoba47 (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, Aoba, and per your suggestion, have made a mention of this in the "other work" section, (see here). Even so, I am still overwhelmed by the attempt by Peregrine Fisher to hold us hostage with his comments on having the "power" to sabotage articles. What an awful experience! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad that I could help, and hopefully, this should resolve the issue. Aoba47 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we please all remember to AGF? Perhaps Peregrine Fisher isn't aware of the correct FAR process and one could be forgiven for such. As The Rambling Man noted on one of the other threads you opened about this article, feel free to edit the article with anything you think is missing, but please be prepared to discuss here if you don't have consensus for your edits. If you have any reliable sources stating that this is a notable controversy about Brie Larson herself (as opposed to the film or the character), I'd entertain an addition to this article. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the message. I believe that it has been added to the article already, but more conversation is more than welcome. I am not surprised that this discussion was brought up, as Larson's comments have attracted attention and I could understand someone coming to the Wikipedia page with an expectation of reading something about it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I also want to apologize if my edit summary for removing the incorrectly formatted FAC was perceived as rude. It was not my intention, and I have made (and still continue) to make very silly mistakes with formatting and other areas in Wikipedia so I completely understand how that may happen. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Shouldn't we address the current situation clearly and accurately in her WP? By not even mentioning the ongoing saga, it would only enable people with ill intent to attribute things Brie never said to her. Right now the YouTube platform is filled with fabricated contents against Brie Larson, we need to aggregate reliable info for the current controversy so that people could be better informed. I strongly disagree with not even mentioning the controversy as if she has something to hide. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned in the "other works" section after discussing above. Here's the sentence: "Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men led to an attempt at review bombingCaptain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with sexist comments." :) We definitely do not need a new section. We can also move that comment into the career section, if other editors deem fit. I'm okay with that as well. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Taking active steps to prevent review bombing by groups with an agenda is normal practice now. It's not really notable that some review sites cleaned up reviews from people trying to abuse the system, and it's certainly not notable on this article which is two steps removed from that mundane activity! ApLundell (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"White men" comment

So, there seems to be tremendous attention on Larson's page because of what she said about "white dudes". As discussed above, I've added this text to the article: "Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with sexist comments", as per this source and this, both of which explicitly refer to the attacks on Larson as "sexist trolling". Even so, the article has been bombarded with edits in which people want "the other side of the story", as Andzejsw keeps warring about, while some are simply resorting to attacks such as this. Any way to resolve this issue once and for all? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there's been similar interest in the Captain Marvel page as well, so TriiipleThreat might like to weigh in. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion all facts should be mentioned. Either if someone likes it or not. It is not normal to write that people were review bombing "Captain Marvel" + adding references that they are just trolls, without adding references why it really happened. Also i am surprised that wiki not hesitated to call Rotten Tomatoes reviewers as trolls, bet there should be discussions about adding references about here hate speech. + i am not asking to write "the other side of the story", but just adding refenreces to her hate speech! / Andzejsw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Till here hate speech reference adding case is resolved, i suggest to edit Article and remove same way references to articles of Rotten Tomatoes user sexist comments, which makes people think, that there were no constructive criticism based on seen trailers, her communication with audience and that people kinda actually likes involvement of politics.... While i just suggested to add references to her words, in this part - "Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with sexist comments." - is mentioned lies, that there were no logical explanation to write bad reviews! And wiki shouldn't promote lies!

I specially know that, cause i live in Latvia, which is next to Russia. An we see propaganda every day both from west and Russia! I don't think that double standards should be accepted here!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh.. this is what another source says:

"In recent weeks, Rotten Tomatoes users have slammed Captain Marvel with negative comments so that it reportedly looked like the least anticipated Marvel movie ever, even though ticket pre-sales have been very strong (bigger than Aquaman or Wonder Woman, according to Fandango). Many of the comments were reportedly attacking the superhero film for having a female lead, and some were in reaction to star Brie Larson complaining that the press pool covering her film was “overwhelmingly white male"."

Nobody is promoting anything, but only covering what the sources say. So please, stop! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

People should be able to tell their opinion based on what they have seen so far and based on communication with them! It is called freedom of speech!!! And if you don't like their opinions, it doesn't mean they are trolls. So stop promoting hate and do what you need to do - edit wiki data based on facts + write all facts, not skip some part, making things out of context! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 10:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions. As our policy states, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. That is what i am trying to tell you. Facts should be added, not skipped, ignored etc. Why are you going against your own words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 10:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC) This is kinda like propaganda what i mentioned above, from Russian and West side here in Latvia. They also like to skip facts, that way completely turning things around — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Lol, it's like talking to a bot. I'm done here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You werent able to explain why you won't accept references to articles. + kinda you are promoting an idea that is equally ok to say that India just attacks Pakistan, without mentioning, that pakistani terorists killed india militants. In this case Those who complain about here are just trolls without reason, cause you by your personal opinion want to go against Wikipedia guidelines and do not want to accept references to her words and why people made comments in Rotten Tomatoes! Of course it is easy to run away, when you aren't able to explain why you don't want to accept facts with references in Wikipedia! Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 11:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC) By the way i am one of the most popular article writers here in Latvia. And that is because i use facts! If you can't explain why aren't you accepting references, while i am telling why they should be accepted, then i see here only one option! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 11:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC) By the way your mentioned article also has no reference to her hate speech. And you call it good moderating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 11:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I want some third person to look on this issue, cause Krimuk2.0 is going against Wikipedia guidelines + knowing that we had some issues, looks like he is not accepting article version because of some personal interests! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Wrote a complaint to "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard" cause looks like Article author is not interested to mention all facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The first thing you need to do is protect the article from blatant vandalism like Krimuk2.0 mentioned. Secondly, maybe you can side-step the “sexist” issue by charactizing the comments in more general terms like “negative” or attribute the “sexist” descriptor to a specific source or sources like “comments that multiple news sources have discribed as sexist”. Furthermore, I do not know what is meant by “the other side of the story”. Larson’s comments are mentioned as well as the backlash. Seems like both sides are covered. I know this is a current event and our natural response is to load up the article with as much information as possible but we need avoid placing too much WP:UNDUE weight on this single event in an article that covers her entire life. If this issue lingers with her into her future endeavors then perhaps it should be expanded.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, TriiipleThreat. The page has been semi-protected, and I've changed the wording to “negative comments". I hope we can agree that the current sentence is fine for now, per WP:RECENTISM, and as you said, if it continues to garner traction, we can expand on it at a later time. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with negative comments." <-- I don't agree, cause this part promotes fake news. There was no reviews, poll weather people want to ee a movie or not. Do you guys know a difference between poll and reviews? Reference articles are fake news and you should always check if reference is fake or not. Everywhere you see images before poll was removed, you can see it was just choise if people want to go to movie or not + they in coments explainet why they choosed to go or not. But then fake news made it sound like it was reviews on film, which wasn't out yet, and called peoples just trolls, without any evidences at all!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 06:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

So please change review part to poll + remove fake news references and instead use those, where poll was visible + suggest to use references where was explained why people was voting (her speech against all white man), that they won't go to movie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• However you put this, it does not belong in the "Other work" section. wumbolo ^^^ 11:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

About section i agree. Same there doesn't belong sentence, which is there now, and witch one needs to be corrected. Same goes with references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Fourth opinion here.

User:Andzejsw: all content on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is especially true for claims about living persons, particularly if those claims are negative. We do not allow our own original research or opinions, including our interpretation of what the sources say or mean. We must also strive to accurately represent what sources say and not give "equal time" to minority positions. These are our Core Content Policies, meaning they tell us how to write articles on Wikipedia.

Article Talk pages are also not a forum for our own opinions. Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including Talk pages.

I understand that you believe the reliable sources are incorrect. To be completely frank, that doesn't matter. If every reliable source said the Sun and the Moon were the same object, then that's what we would say on Wikipedia. Thankfully, reliable sources are reliable because they don't make that ridiculous claim. In this case, reliable sources overwhelming use terms like "review bombing" and "trolling" so that's what we should say as well. We don't fact check sources, we simply summarize what sources say. I can't make that clear enough. Though if we did fact check, it's trivially easy to look at older versions of the Rotten Tomatoes page for Captain Marvel and see a section named "AUDIENCE REVIEWS FOR CAPTAIN MARVEL" with a link to "View All Audience Reviews". And while Rotten Tomatoes doesn't currently allow user reviews before the movie is released, the page with "CAPTAIN MARVEL REVIEWS" (including the "Audience" tab) is still active. And yes, there are actual "reviews" of a movie that hasn't even come out mixed in there.

I hope this helps you understand why we do the things we do on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please ask. And please also remember to sign your comments on Talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~). Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

```` I just don't get it how far Wikipedia will go... How can you promote fake news and say that it doesn't matter if it is true or not. That only resource matters and you shouldn't change it, if it is fake... In my country fake news are can lead to prison. But you now say, that i can edit articles and put fake news, if it is in some of mainstream media.. WTF man!? Also those are comments not reviews! There is big difference! (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we please add something like this to the article?

While being interviewed about the movie "A Wrinkle in Time", she said that the opinions of "40-year-old white dudes" are unimportant because the movie was made for "women of colour, biracial women, to teen women of colour"[1]. Numerous people took offense and claimed this statement was sexist and racist. Brie Larson later explained her only intention was to express the need for more none white male movie critics.

[1] “I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work about A Wrinkle in Time,” Larson said. “It wasn’t made for him! I want to know what it meant to women of colour, biracial women, to teen women of colour.” https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/brie-larson-is-sick-of-being-interviewed-by-white-dudes-1.3792529

188.96.230.251 (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read the sections above to understand why we won't do that. Woodroar (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A.C.T. image

The Strand Theater, at 1127 Market Street, was opened in 2015 as A.C.T.'s second space.

According to the article, Larson attended "a training program" at American Conservatory Theater (ACT) in San Francisco when she was six (presumably the A.C.T. Young Conservatory). This would have been in 1995. The image used in the article is of A.C.T.'s Strand Theater, which was opened in 2017. In 1996 the Strand Theater was not owned by A.C.T. (and in fact primarily showed porn films). I don't think an image of the Strand Theater should be used in the Brie Larson article.

A.C.T. Geary Theater façade.

It's hard to know exactly where A.C.T.'s youth training program would have been operating in 1995. A.C.T.'s flagship Geary Theater was heavily damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and did not reopen until 1996. During this seven-year period, A.C.T.'s productions were staged in other Bay Area theaters. There's not much info on where the Young Conservatory program operated from.

However, perhaps we could switch to use a Geary Theatre image for the time being as at least it has some connection with the program that would have been running in 1995? Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for bringing this to my attention, Rupert Clayton. I've changed the image in the article. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimuk2.0! Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously?

This is the featured article of the day when her movie premiers? How much money did Wikipedia take for that favor?

Also this is straight out fake news: Under advocacy it says "Her complaint about being interviewed mainly by white men during her press tours led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with negative comments."

With only 2 sources, the liberal Independent and Washington Post.

I didn't realize disliking a movie (because you oppose racism in all its forms) the corporate overlords need you to love was trolling or "review bombing".

In addition a movie cannot be reviewed before it is released. The "review bombing" was a false claim by these media outlets who mistook a poll about wanting to see the movie as a review metric. This sentence should be edited to include "led to news outlets mistakingly claiming a troll campaign to review bomb the movie was undertaken. In fact they confused poll on the number of people desiring to see the movie as reviews." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.122.152 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying I want Wikipedia to do something (I know you won't.). I'm just saying there's a reason people distrust the media and Trump is president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Fils de la Liberté (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence "Her complaint about being interviewed mainly by white men during her press tours led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with negative comments" should be removed because it is inaccurate because you can not review bomb a movie before it is out (people just indicated on Rotten Tomatoes that they did not want to see the movie), also because the two sources are far leftist news sites that are not reliable for information on the topic due to those articles obvious politicizing of the topic.129.130.18.192 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't review bombing, Rotten Tomatoes released an article stating that they weren't reviews in the first place. It was the same article that mentioned attempting to stop trolling, but in regards to preventing trolling, they were talking about removing comments. In short, there were no reviews and therefore no there was no review bombing, and on a separate matter they removed trolling comments. Both of those matters were touched upon in the same Rotten Tomatoes article. While this is all only tangentially related to Brie, the Wikipedia page DOES have inaccurate information and uses sources that have inaccurate information. 69.170.89.155 (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Addressing Criticism

"Larson's final appearance that year was in the India-set musical romance Basmati Blues, a project she had filmed back in 2013, which received criticism on social media for its white savior narrative." If we're gonna address the white savior narrative of Basmati Blues, should we also address the criticisms from people that Marvel is pushing a "feminist narrative" in Captain Marvel (along with views from the other side as well) or just remove the criticism section in general? Kinda confused here. YouGottaChill (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Do WP:reliable sources mention anything about criticisms for a "feminist narrative" from people who are not pissed-off men intent on trolling? No, then no we won't mention such stuff. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Social media is not a reliable source, yet we're using it. I'm just implying that criticisms should at the very least be mentioned. We can't just exclude certain things due to WP:Conflict of Interest on the topic. YouGottaChill (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are we citing social media? Because I skimmed through the sources and could not find it. Also, you may find our guideline on identifying reliable sources helpful. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It's in the Careers section and is cited by the citations 105/106. Also, I'm confused by why we need "reliable sources" to prove a controversy, when it's the center point of discussion on social media. It's not really about proving that the controversy is right, but that it's being talked about and is a popular topic. YouGottaChill (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources 105 and 106 in the current version of the article are HuffPost News and Variety, not social media. Yes, they cite social media, but that's because they are reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the primary social media sources. That's exactly what secondary sources are supposed to do. As Wikipedians, we summarize content published by reliable secondary sources—and, to a certain extent, tertiary sources—so they really form the foundation of all our articles. It's not our job to decide which social media trends are important or not—that's original research—and it's also not our job to fact-check or debate reliable sources—that's editorial bias. In short, we don't care what non-experts say on social media or how they rate movies or their opinions on vaccination or free energy or a host of other topics. They're not experts because, well, they're not experts. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomato "review bombing" should be changed.

As I have stated in several edits (which I admittedly should not have made), and as is stated above, Captain Marvel was not "review bombed" due on Rotten Tomatos. This was a biased slant pushed by the media, and wikipedia is clearly backing a bias by stating this as a matter of fact. Stating this was what was reported would be better.

This is what I propose it gets changed to (alongside a source), as it is closer to what actually occurred, without the hyperbolic slanting that mainstream articles shoved out, without pushing any negative nor positive stance either way as well;

"Her complaint about being interviewed mainly by white men during her press tours led to many people expressing their desire to not watch Captain Marvel on Rotten Tomatoes via the page's "want to see" feature (which has since been removed)."

The fact that this was reported as "online trolls" review bombing the movie can be added thereafter too. As long as it isn't being stated as a matter of fact that falls in line in clearly hyperbolic news-reporting", as even the slight bit of research or even knowledge on how the website works tells you that review bombing a movie on Rotten Tomatos pre-release is literally impossible. --Catcure (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit: The "want to see" feature is a feature that lets people express whether they want to see a movie, based on trailers, PR, ect, and is not a judgement of the movie itself. No media outlet bothered explaining this, and pushed the notion that people were "attacking Captain Marvel" with "trolling". What people were "attacking" was the public relations and advertising surrounding the movie. Simply stating using a build in feature to say "I don't like the PR, I won't see the movie" is what people were doing. There is zero basis for relying on biased news sources as factual information, rather then simple reports of alleged activity, when it completely conflicts with how the website fundamentally works. --Catcure (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

References

We summarize what reliable sources say and we don't cherry-pick sources to find one that agrees with our biases. This is exactly why WP:NPOV is a policy. Sources overwhelming use the term "review bomb", so that's how we're going to characterize it. That usage is in total agreement with our article on review bombing, which mentions "work[ing] online in an attempt to harm [...] sales and/or popularity, particularly to draw attention to an issue with the product or its vendor". Even a strict definition would be true: users left reviews for a movie that hadn't come out yet in a section named "AUDIENCE REVIEWS FOR CAPTAIN MARVEL". Yes, many—perhaps most—negative comments were users saying why they weren't going to see the movie. But literally anyone could read through the comments and read what appear to be reviews, as many, many media outlets did. And not just "could", but can because they're still there. Woodroar (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

They were people stating if they wanted to see the movie or not, not "reviews", and they were not an "attempt to harm the sales or popularity" of Captain Marvel. Keep the entire damn thing as it is, if you must, but at the very least, change the wording to clarify that it was "reported that" this is what happened. Even if, by strict definition, we're talking about review bombing, this should be a situation where you apply a tad bit of common sense to it. People who read that statement on the article, with it reported as a matter of fact, are going to think that online trolls harassed posted troll reviews of a movie, when that is not, by any stretch of the imagination outside of being anal retentive to exact definitions or using hyperbole, what happened. I don't expect wikipedia to be biased towards it NOT happening, I just think that as it is right now, it is a clear bias that will be imparted onto a reader who reads the article. You have proof that media outlets reported their perspective on an event. Put that onto the article, by all means, but I think it should be kept strictly second hand. I'm sorry, but this creates a clear bias towards the "everyone who dislike Captain Marvel and Brie Larson are incel trolls" stance, whether you intend it to be or not. --Catcure (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I know this is not hard proof of anything, but I just want to point out that people have already noticed the bias in that part of the article. Tim Pool, for instance, talked about it in one of his videos, while showing that specific sentence in the article, and stating, that it is "simply not true". --Catcure (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes censorship

https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/03/08/rotten-tomatoes-deletes-over-50000-captain-marvel-reviews-they-appear-to-be-bot-reviews/

will someone add that her actions lead to bad reviews in RottenTomatoes, which lead to massive user reviews censorship!? Or it's still not allowed to write truth, knowing also that she is now promoted in wikipedia, while she made hate speech against all man!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, her actions don't lead to bad reviews. It's the simple-minded thoughts of the trolls and haters that lead to bad reviews. You just don't know it, Andzejsw, or maybe you do and are deliberately refusing to believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.78.114 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Simple minded is to say that the simple-minded thoughts of the trolls and haters that lead to bad reviews. For one, because bad reviews are a re-action to an *action* <- point proven already. And the second thing is, that it was not bad reviews that were left on Rotten Tomatoes, but simple "no" answers on the questions whether one wanted to see a movie. Talk of simple minds, not recognizing the difference between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.174.61 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

On the Advocacy section, the second sentence should say "She used he celebrity status to speak...." अक्षयमेहता (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Why? Using past tense would imply that she is no longer doing so when it seems she continues to do so Cannolis (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

2401:4900:16C6:AEF2:1:1:FB43:EF03 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Woodroar (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Franco-Manitoba

This article had plenty of background indicating her father's Franco-Manitoban roots: https://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/jacques-noel/brie-larson-une-desaulniers-damerique-oscarisee_a_23373054/ (it describes him attending Universite St-Boniface, and his lineage from a small Francophone community in Southern Manitoba). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.134.118 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Her father is from Manitoba as our his parents and their parents. They were Francophones. Why not just state he is Franco-Manitoban? Cladeal832 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please mention a source that explicitly says that he is Franco-Manitoban. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Their first language was French. He is from Manitoba, his parents are from Manitoba, their parents are from Manitoba? How is this confusing? https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=CanCen1921&indiv=try&h=6804984 http://passages.winnipegfreepress.com/passage-details/id-68926/Aurele_Desaulniers http://passages.winnipegfreepress.com/passage-details/id-231381/Gabrielle_Desaulniers Cladeal832 (talk) What is your issue? That they aren't actually Franco-Manitobans? Cladeal832 (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

None of these sources even mention Manitoba. Also, we need a WP:RS to explicitly state that he is Franco-Manitoban for us to mention that. Lacking that, French-Canadian is what it'll say. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

One, who made you judge and jury? Two, you're wrong. A French-Canadian from Manitoba is a Franco-Manitoba. It's ON THE FIRST LINE of the article of Franco-Manitobans. It's like I wrote Lassie is a collie and you reverted the edit and wrote "No, Lassie's a dog." A collie is a dog and a Franco-Manitoba is a French-Canadian. Specificity isn't the same as inaccuracy. All the sources mentions Manitoba so are you even reading them. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The case being made against Franco-Manitoban is as if I was adding a source stating she was born in Sacramento and raised in Los Angeles and I wrote, "She is a Californian." and User:Krimuk2.0 deleted it rationalizing it, "Well no source has the words, "She is a Californian." therefore can't state she's a Californian." If you accept her father is a native French speaker and from Manitoba (let alone for many generations), he's a Franco-Manitoba by definition presented in the article Franco-Manitoban. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't wish to rude, but when a contributor just ignores and misrepresent sources, it feels like it's in bad faith. I show links of her father's parents and their parents being Francophones in Manitoba and the response is, "none of them say Manitoba" which makes no sense. I've address multiple times User:Krimuk2.0's issues and shifting standards. Maybe it's just a disagreement on style, but style isn't the same inaccurate. User:Krimuk2.0's obtuseness should be the sole factor. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Gain consensus with other users first. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You didn't gain consensus so why is the burden on me? You stated her father wasn't from Manitoba. He was. You were wrong. I bothered to engage and refute your points, but you don't do me the same courtesy. It's okay to be wrong, but stop trying to ignore sources and make the article less arcuate. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, it's a shifting standard. First User:Krimuk2.0 reverted it because sources weren't good enough, so I found more. Then User:Krimuk2.0 stated it didn't show they were from Manitoba which was inaccurate. One, User:Krimuk2.0 doesn't engage when I've pointed out inaccuracy is his/her rational for reverting the edit. Rather than admit a mistake, the latest standard is consensus which isn't fair since there was no consensus to remove it either. It's a fairly minor edit and probably nobody outside Manitoba even knows what a Franco-Manitoba are how it's distinct from a general French-Canadian identity. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have discussed, addressed and responded whenever User:Krimuk2.0 has reverted while User:Krimuk2.0 ignores my case and only reverts edits. Again, if User:Krimuk2.0 won't engage or discuss why he/she reverts the edits after his/her case is address and proven wrong, he/she is acting in bad faith and his/her edits are the edit war. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read the Wikipedia guide just now and consensus is not sought for its own sake nor it is simply about votes. Consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. Multiple source show her father was from Manitoba so what exactly are Krimuk2.0's conflicts about stating French-Canadian from Manitoba versus French-Canadian. Also I've suggested a comprise of instead of using Franco-Manitoba. Again, I cannot get consensus if User:Krimuk2.0 refuses to engage when I refute his/her original reasoning for reverting the edit nor seek any comprise. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop commenting about me. Wait for other editors to weigh in. As for your comment that "Multiple source show her father was from Manitoba": that's not true. You have still not provide a single WP:Reliable source that states that. You have been blocked previously for WP:Original research, so I plead you not do the same thing again. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course I'm commenting on you. YOU ARE THE ONE REVERTING THIS AND MISREPRESETING THE SOURCES. It's not original research. Original research isn't the same and not using the words. HuffPost shows her father's family has been for generations in... Manitoba and he himself when to school in... Manitoba and his parents' obituaries show they were lifelong resident of... Manitoba. Again, how can I try to come to consensus with a contributor who won't engage. Multiple times I've shown. I still don't understand why such opposition to this edit. User:Krimuk2.0 won't concede her father is from Manitoba despite sourcing, User:Krimuk2.0 does admit her father's family is from Manitoba. Again, User:Krimuk2.0 ignores all I write except to make it personal about me while I have repeatedly address his or her issues and concerns. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said, ask other editors to weigh in. I'm done engaging with you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 wants to comment and attempt to use prior bad acts to make my case less legitimate rather than address what I'm written. UserKrimuk2.0 has never engaged. I've read the Wikipedia guide on consensus and it's not about automatically voting. It's about if there's a conflict, the two contributors discuss it themselves. User:Krimuk2.0 repeatedly states source don't show her father is from Manitoba. I've tried and tried to address User:Krimuk2.0's concerns and shirting standards, but just double down on a fake claim that none shows her father is from Manitoba which he is. I'll even suggest another new comprise right now. User:Krimuk2.0 concedes her father's family is from Manitoba even if Krimuk2.0 won't her father himself in a Manitoban. So the article can read, "Her father's family are French-Canadians from Manitoba." Cladeal832 (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Krimuk2.0: there's nothing in the sources that states the father is from Manitoba. So "French-Canadian" it will remain. Also, don't shout and, as they said, wait for others to weigh in. Per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, the person wanting to make the change needs to make the case for the change if they are reverted. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Honest question, do the contributors read French? How can they not be Manitobans when her father's parents be lifelong Manitobans or her father go to school in Manitoba. Again, the line in the article in question isn't about her father, it's about her father's ancestry which are French-Canadian FROM MANITOBA. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi... yes, I do read some French. More the point, I will say again: stop shouting and be civil or you may find yourself reported. You are inferring facts and while your inference may be reasonable, it is still an inference and not a reported statement. I have no problem imagining why you were reported for OR. One also has to wonder why it's just so very important that Larson be listed as having a "Franco-Manitoban" father. I'm from Canada, by the way, and I've never heard that term before now, so how "French-Canadian" is problematic is confusing. The article is on Larson, not her father, so nitty-gritty details about her non-notable parents are inappropriate anyway. Does her father being French-speaking from Manitoba materially change the details of her life than if her father were French-speaking from Quebec or Ontario? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess "no". The pertinent point is that her first language was French. Even the "French-Canadian" distinction is possibly irrelevant. So "French-Canadian" is more than specific enough. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

FROM HER FATHER'S FATHER OBITUARY goes through everywhere he lived through his life: Quoting, "Aurele and his soulmate, Gabrielle Desaulniers of Saint-Boniface, married in 1953 to later move to the small town of St. Elizabeth where they settled to new beginnings. Later in 1961, there left little hope in St. Elizabeth for him and his young family. Still confident, Aurele rolled up his sleeves and launched a new company, Aurele Desaulniers Insurance…. he passed the business to his sons in 1987." FROM THE HUFFPOST QUEBEC ARTICLE quote, "Sylvain Desaulniers est un diplômé du Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, là où ses parents, Aurèle Desaulniers (1925-2002) et Gabrielle Chatelain (1931-2015), ont grandi." Again, I get original research, but it doesn't fit here. The original Elle Magazine source states her father is French-Canadian. All I want to add was which part of Canada (might notice it's a pretty large place). Ultimately I don't care or desire to get into fights. I just want accuracy and her father is from Manitoba and her father's family are from Manitoba so why revert this information seems silly. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You are making two different cases. Whether it's sourced or whether it's material are different questions. Yes, for Franco-Manitobans, they considered themselves district group. Again, Wikipedia often differs to local knowledge. If somebody doesn't get French and French-Canadian are different and distinct groups, how can they possibly understand the difference between Franco-Manitobans and other French-Canadians. Seriously, it's two words, "from Manitoba". Cladeal832 (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Exact quote use

It seems odd to me that not only isn't Larson's controversial quote here, the source it's in isn't even cited. When I added it, it was reverted. Considering the amount of media this has been generating, it seems worth putting on here for people to have context rather than having a summary of her statement that is necessarily wanting of context. Marie Claire has the quote:

MC: Nobody usually wants to take a chance on a disabled journalist. 
I’d love to know what your particular reasons were.

BL: About a year ago, I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed 
it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male. So, I spoke to 
Dr Stacy Smith at the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, who put together a study to confirm that. Moving forward, I decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive. After speaking with you, the film critic Valerie Complex and a few other women of colour, it sounded like across the board they weren’t getting the same opportunities as others. When I talked to the facilities that weren’t providing it, they all had different excuses.

MC: And people don’t realise how vast the disabled community is. It isn’t just white men in wheelchairs.

An overly short summary doesn't provide the essence of what she was saying the way an exact quote does. Calbaer (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Using such a big quote is WP:UNDUE, and I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about this. Having said that, I've restored the actual Marie Claire interview reference, so anyone who wants to know more about it can click on it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about including controversial quotes in general, and specifically quotes that people like to misconstrue or take out of context. It seems very close to "let's put it out there and let the readers decide" rather than following NPOV and neutrally summarizing what the sources actually say. That being said, a lot of reliable sources quote some or all of her statement, so I'm not completely opposed to including something. I would probably follow WaPo's lead and condense the quote to something like About a year ago, I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male ... Moving forward, I decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive. Anyways, that's my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, we could put that much of the quote in the reference itself, under the "quote" paremeter. What do you think of that, Woodroar? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with waiting in case other editors have strong opinions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind the truncated version, though I disagree with a few points above, especially the notion that a quote gives undue weight and the idea that the text before was as neutral (no matter how well intentioned) as a quote would be. Quotes are nice since the only non-neutral thing about them is their parsing/framing. Saying Larson "complain[ed] about being interviewed mainly by white men during her press tours" makes it sound more petty and negative ("Ugh! Another man!") than ideologically motivated, which the quote indicates it was (especially the full version, but the truncation is still better than the summary). Calbaer (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually no, we shouldn't use long quotes, as much as possible. Please read WP:QUOTEFARM. As for the current wording sounding "petty and negative", that's open to interpretation. I don't think it sounds petty and negative, but if there's a better way to summarise the information in prose, then I'm all for it. However, the quote, as I said before, and on which I agree with Woodroar, serves no purpose. As our policy linked above explicitly states, we should not use them when they "are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased".Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried to implement what part of this was agreed upon, i.e., putting the truncated quote as a part of the reference. Empirical evidence argues against hers being "a point that can also be paraphrased," since the existing paraphrase - "complain about being interviewed mainly by white men during her press tours" - doesn't get the thrust of her point across, that it's an attempt to increase "inclusivity." It's difficult to get at a paraphrased version that everyone will agree is neutral and representative. That's the virtue of using the quote itself. Right now, it's a bit awkward having with the quote in a different section, but I'm hoping that will either be a point of common ground and/or a point we can improve upon. Calbaer (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not the way to go about it. You could have waited for other editors to weigh in, but you chose not to. This current version is sure to get more "hurt" men huffing and puffing, so let's all just wait for that. I've also restored the "white men" part as that's what led to all this mess. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What "other editors" do you have in mind? I waited 24 hours for further comment. I tried as best I understood to change it to my understanding of the consensus, and you reverted, accusing my edit of being a "Lie." I read the discussion again and tried again, asking you to change it how you saw fit if my change wasn't sufficient. You lopped off part of a sentence, making your change necessary to revert (the only question was to what). I'm still waiting to hear either why you won't change it to your understanding of what we could agree on in the above discussion or what you felt prevented an actionable consensus. I'm also waiting for you to address the concerns of others rather than making accusations against them.

The whole point of this is to make sure people know what happened. We shouldn't be putting it in the words of the "hurt men" while omitting the actual words that triggered the kerfuffle. (Your link, "Brie Larson is sick of being interviewed by white dudes," is pretty similar to what the present summary says. That's not a good thing.)

Also, the use of the Marie Claire reference after "led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with negative comments" is rather perplexing (since the article preceded this event), yet every attempt of mine to move it to what the citation actually regards, you move it back. (Without a fix, a future editor will inevitably either understand the intent and move it after you move on from this, or not understand the intent and delete it.)

Please return to trying to work on a consensus since you clearly feel one is lacking. As I said, I would rather have the quote (or a two-sentence version of it) stand for itself, and I feel the current language isn't neutral. If we want to the POV of "hurt men," we should quote sources that have those opinions rather than presenting it as fact. I was okay with vague language linked to a citation with the quote, but that was reverted, so please explain what was wrong with it and how to fix. Are you insisting on the language, "she bemoaned/complained being interviewed mainly by white men" rather than something like, "she was motivated by the lack of diversity of interviewers, most of whom, she noted, were 'white male'"? I feel the latter is more accurate, though, again, using the quote instead would avoid the need to pick just the right words. Calbaer (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing, the current language is incomplete (lacking the fact that her diversity observation included critics, the part to which the most attention was paid) and arguably POV (using the word "complaining," which makes it sound like she was griping rather than explaining herself). In addition, as I've explained, the Marie Claire reference is in the wrong place. The easiest fix for this would be to use the whole or partial quote. Since the objection to doing so is undue weight, I'll condense it as briefly and neutrally as I can: "She explained that critics and interviewers were 'overwhelmingly white male,' and she wanted press to be 'more inclusive'.[126] Her comments prompted people to negatively review bomb Captain Marvel on Rotten Tomatoes.[127][128]" It's the same number of words as what it's replacing, obviating any due weight concerns, but more accurate than what's currently on the page. If I don't see any objections in the next couple of days, I'll just go ahead and make the change. Calbaer (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, the onus is on you to garner consensus for the change. No comments do not mean no objection, so you'd do better to have some patience and wait for others to weigh in, however long that takes. Failing to do so will only result in a revert. As per your "fix", I fail to see that as an improvement. As I've said before, a better wording is always appreciated, but your insistence on using quotes and complaining about where the reference is placed (it is in fact placed correctly, at the end of the sentence, and not tacked on in the middle of it, if I may add) & such, seems unnecessary and misplaced. This is not a war zone. If you are willing to listen to others and work together in good-faith, then you'll see things work faster and more smoothly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to listen to others if they have something constructive to say. Do you have a better alternative for improving NPOV? Consensus is a matter of weighing all editors' legitimate concerns, and I've been trying to do that. If an editor chooses not to weigh in after having his or her concerns addressed, then it's not up to me to hunt him or her down, ergo my remark on going ahead and making the change if I saw a lack of objection after a reasonable period. Silence is not a veto.

Further, I would suggest that your implications and accusations of bad faith, deceit, and incorrigibility are not consistent with my portion of this conversion. I would further suggest, again, that you refrain from personal attacks and stick to the subject at hand, which is how to balance NPOV and DUE (and, not, I might add, defending the article against those who sincerely want to improve it, even if you feel they are mistaken in how they want to do so). Calbaer (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What personal attacks? No attacks were made. I'm not contributing to this conversation anymore, because you are clearly not interested in collaborating in good-faith, but are making judgements on me instead. Let's just wait and see what others have to say about this. And yes, silence is not a veto, nor is it an approval. An alternative would be to start an WP:RFC, but edit-warring is not acceptable. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

...which is why I'm trying to engage in constructive discussion, by proposing my own wording and asking others to do the same if they disagree with mine, hoping to settle on a consensus. Again, I've stated the problems (ensuring an impartial tone, not omitting key information, keeping citations close), proposed replacement text, and asked for alternatives. I'd prefer to focus on that. Since you asked, though, you accused me of lying, edit-warring, and operating in bad faith. If these were not intended as personal attacks, I hope you will understand (1) why they are received as such (specifically aspirations) and (2) that they are not helpful to this process. Your intense interest in this page is illustrated by the page history, so I hope you can turn that interest in a positive direction once again. Calbaer (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As I see it, the current version has problems. We can't say "Her reasoning for this" because none of the sources mention the inclusion rider at all. It may seem like a natural progression to us, but that's SYNTH. We also can't say "complained" or "bemoaned" per WP:SAID and because the sources don't say that, either.
So I'm proposing this: In an interview with Marie Claire, Larson noted that the film journalists she spoke with at press junkets "appeared to be overwhelmingly white male", which led to trolling and review bombing of the Captain Marvel page on Rotten Tomatoes.
Here's why this is an improvement: it provides both context and a starting point for this whole kerfuffle, it uses the word "noted" which is neutral per SAID, it uses part of a quote that sources repeat frequently without leaving its meaning up for interpretation, it says who Larson was talking about, it mentions trolling, it characterizes the review bombing as a review bombing without softpedaling it as "attempted", plus I think "the Captain Marvel page" sounds better than "Captain Marvel's page". Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with this version, Woodroar. Thanks you! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer two sentences for readability, which would also break up the refs more sensibly. And it still doesn't mention the critics mentioned in the original quote, "I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male." And it also omits her own explanation of being "more inclusive." But in terms of context and POV, I agree that's very much an improvement. Perhaps In an interview with Marie Claire, Larson mentioned a desire to be "more inclusive" upon noticing that the film critics and journalists she spoke with at press junkets "appeared to be overwhelmingly white male." This comment led to trolling and review bombing of the Captain Marvel page on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm not wed to the language, but I'd like language as neutral as Woodroar uses with the addition of both causes (critics and interviewers) and the intended effect (diversity). Calbaer (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Krimuk2.0? Anyone else? Woodroar (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: I believe the "trolling" is unnecessary and/or ambiguous. It's unnecessary because, clicking on the articles that use the word "troll" in the title, I see they're just mostly using it as a noun to describe the review-bombers. The one place they're arguably using it a different way regarding anti-Larson actions is to describe anti-Larson YouTube videos (though it's unclear it's used there, since those are deemed examples of "trolling and criticism," and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to characterize them as the later). If you had something specific in mind with that phrase, it'd be good to be more specific, such as "response videos and review bombing" or "fake 1-star ratings and review bombing." If you used it because it was a word used in headlines instead of "review- bombing," best it be omitted. It's ambiguous since the wording makes it unclear whether or not the "trolling" was "on Rotten Tomatoes," but I'm not sure the best way out of that except maybe adding some words for parallel language, e.g., "response videos on YouTube and review bombing on rotten tomatoes." Calbaer (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay, but not sure why we need to put "more inclusive" in quotes. How does this sound: In an interview with Marie Claire, Larson spoke about diversity among film critics and journalists as she found them to be "overwhelmingly white male". This comment led to review bombing of the Captain Marvel page on Rotten Tomatoes.? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think we need to mention trolling. It's called out in the Independent and Washington Post coverage, not to mention The AV Club, PBS, Wired, ScreenRant, The New York Times, and plenty of other sources. In fact, a Google search for "captain marvel" review bomb gives me about 9.5M results whereas "captain marvel" trolling gives me 28.9M, more than 3 times the number of sources. Clearly, that's a very rough estimate, but due weight suggests we mention (if not emphasize) the trolling. Woodroar (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change using the most recent text plus a mention of trolling because it is mentioned so prominently in sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Catcure your edits are WP:UNDUE. There is no way such a simple matter should be notable enugh for coverage in an encylopedia. Gain consensus for your change and stop edit-warring. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"servicemen"

Do we know for certain that everyone with whom Larson interacted at the Air Force base was male? I didn't find this in the footnoted sources, but if anyone can confirm it, I'm open to it. If not, I propose a more gender-neutral designation, such as "service personnel". Chillowack (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Chillowack. I've changed it to "service personnel". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Chillowack (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

My edit request is to list Brie Larson as a singer-songwriter and musician in the first sentence on the main page, after actress and filmmaker. 2601:883:4280:28B0:DD28:8FA4:E90D:709C (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As well, Brie is not known as a musican, who's mostly known as an actress. No one refers to her as a musician. QueerFilmNerd<sup>talk</sup> 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Brie Larson is listed as a musician in the source

“short description|American actress, singer-songwriter and musician”

This information can be found in the article’s source code, particularly in the third line. 2601:883:4280:28B0:807E:6F3F:7098:9A8E (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

It is worth mentioning that Brie Larson had a small role in the NBC television show, 'community' KingTubaTheSecond (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It's already mentioned in the article. —KuyaBriBri<sup>Talk</sup> 20:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted changes to Advocacy section

@Rayne99: I have reverted the edits that you made to the Advocacy section. I do not necessarily disagree with the conclusion you've drawn there. However, this is a biography of a living person. There are guidelines that must be followed when writing about real people who are still alive. Verifiable sources are required, especially for claims that could be libelous. If there are no sources that support the conclusions you were drawing in your edits, then it would also be considered original research. Unfortunately, I cannot find support for what you wrote in the sources that were already cited in that paragraph. If/when you find reliable sources for these claims, and/or you choose to add a quotation, be sure to properly cite them. Also, whenever you're writing on Wikipedia, be sure to keep a neutral point of view in mind. TJScalzo (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal YouTube Channel

Brie Larson recently started a personal YouTube channel. Currently there is essentially no content beyond a single introductory video. Is this enough to mention in the article? There are some reliable sources (1 & 2) that have covered this, but I'm a little unclear on where it would fit in the existing article's structure. Would it warrant a subsection within Personal life and media image or just a single sentence/paragraph at this point? TJScalzo (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It seemed there was a through-line from Brie's terrible PR in her awkward and vindictive interviews in the company of her Marvel co-stars, on many, many occasions, and the creation of her YT channel to improve her public image. Which has many guest participants, but no males, other than hyper-sexualized male trainer, and some boy band twins. I understand Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine, but public reaction and the actions taken to respond to it seem relevant. 2601:600:9B7F:4A20:34F5:91A:9675:A4D (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Why there is no section about her racist and sexist opinion

Is becouse she speaked about white males? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.198.56 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't a gossip magazine. We base our articles on what reliable published sources say. If you have sources to back up your claims, please bring them here for discussion. I would also suggest reading our policies covering content about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Theirs plenty of sources available out their on the internet to support Larsons man hating . Wikipedia editors will allow Jk Rowling to be called a terf with biased sources but won't call out Larson. Some Wikipedia editors are just a bunch of hypocrites , or wannabe SJWS. Even if you get sources , they will just say its incorrect but yet for other people like Jk Rowling it's ok to have poor sources . Hpdh4 11:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources, then provide them. Woodroar (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The Rowling article does not say she is a TERF, it says she was criticized for supporting a controversial person and was accused by media outlets.

If you have ("biased" and "poor") sources similar to those used in the Rowling article (CBS News, The New York Times, Vox, and Forbes) making/discussing this accusation, it might be worth two sentences here. What sources do you have? - SummerPhD<sup>v2.0</sup> 18:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Woodroar I have yet to see her as an advocate for gender equality.. she's solely a feminist. I've read the refs several times and have yet to hear her .. once.. even once.. speak out on men's rights.. but she has a lot to say about being female. And sidething.. are you actually Wiki staff? I saw no reference to being staff on your talk page.. but you are quick to cut out other editors contribs here.. Dava4444 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dava4444, a few things about Wikipedia:

We don't write articles based on our own interpretations of what people say or do or think. That's original research, and avoiding original research is 1 of our 3 core content policies. The other 2 are verifiability, which is citing what we write to reliable sources, and neutral point of view, which is summarizing those sources accurately and without misrepresenting them or adding our own bias. So if you look at the source cited to that claim, you'll see that it specifically calls her a "fierce gender-equality activist". We could just as easily find other sources that call her an "outspoken advocate for gender equality" or about her "calling out the gender imbalance within the film criticism world". Multiple sources writing about her gender activism in precisely those terms means that we should, too.

As QueerFilmNerd just mentioned, Wikipedia is not a forum. Article Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not to talk or gossip about the subject of the article. If anyone wants to add content to the article about her statements, then they absolutely need to start by providing reliable sources.

I'll add that we have an additional, strict sourcing and behavioral requirements when it comes to content about living persons. This applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including Talk pages. We're not here to gossip or complain about the subject. Multiple editors have crossed that line and I'm simply reminding them of why we are here.

We don't really have "staff" here. I mean, of course there are people working at Wikipedia, but they're mostly behind the scenes. Virtually everyone, including you and me, are volunteers. We have administrators and bureaucrats, also volunteers, who have additional technical abilities to issue blocks, protect pages, and so on. They don't dictate article content and they don't make up our policies and guidelines, that's pretty much done by consensus with a small amount of direction from the Wikimedia Foundation. Any editor can point other editors to our rules, as I and others have done on this page. Woodroar (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder for all of y'all participating in this thread about WP:NOTAFORUM and per the talk page notice banner at the top. They are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, if you have an issue with how the article is framed bring some RS and talk about how to improve it. This is not for general discussion about Brie Larson. QueerFilmNerd<sup>talk</sup> 22:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I peacefully left this in lieu of a desire that this may become 'edit warring' .. no offence and I enjoyed your neutrality QueerFilmNerd.. but there is great irony in warnings of gossip while there is a whole section on advocacy, including whether or not she clapped for Casey Affleck. Woodroar enjoys quoting wiki rules to whomever he disagrees with and so gaslights some authority upon himself. And to the point.. "Larson is a gender equality activist" I checked every ref, she never once advocates for men's rights only womens. Her brand of gender equality is merely feminism with delusions of grandeur, and in the interest of improving the article this should be reflected.Dava4444 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Dava4444 Actually, she has been supportive of men's rights on social media. Particularly men who have been victims of sexual assault. If you google "Brie Larson You're right - but men go through this" you will find a tweet she made on this topic. Jabberwocky14 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Reorganize and establish new headings

I separated 'Personal life' from 'Media image" and expanded the latter to include "and related interests - her use of social media and new YouTube. Although many articles are printed or posted by media, they don't all have to be published here. I think her not clapping for Casey Affleck at the awards ceremony was not such a big public statement, and could be deleted. Really, some statements and actions begin to look less important soon after media chatter about them. And why did Time rank her as among the '100 most important persons in the world'? Really? Exploring that may yield more than reading about magazine writers' impressions of her. Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should she be called a "filmmaker"/"film director", "producer" etc. in the lead / infobox? ---FMSky (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:ROLEBIO, only notable as an actress ---FMSky (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• I would support inclusion, because she won a Primetime Emmy for one of the works produced. "Filmmaker" is vague enough to include both production and direction, so is the term to use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • this is her ONLY directing/producing role though if you don't include shorts (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0488953/) FMSky (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• I think I support as well per what SMcCandlish said. -- Zoo (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - not what she commonly is known for, and there is not significant content here about that or use of the word “filmmaker” to refer to her so it is not suitable per WP:LEAD nor WP:WEIGHT. We can TALK about saying an award is something big and talk about using this vague phrase, but that’s just OR which does not match the article or world coverage so should not be in the lead. I could see “actress, musician, and activist” as a suitable summary of the article, but not an inclusion of “filmmaker”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for the above stated reasons Mr Boar1 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Markbassett . In my opinion this was perfectly explained MraClean (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• support she directed two short films, produced and directed one feature film, and additionally produced a VR series for which she received an Emmy. If that ain't notable as a filmmaker, I don't know what is. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022

Brie Larson is an American actress and filmmaker. 43.249.217.253 (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Not just actress but filmmaker. The first line need change!

read the discussion right above your post --FMSky (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)